telewinz - You were the one who said that this incident, with a gun whose brand you refuse to name, leads you to think that polymer guns may be inferior to metal ones. So, you don't like polymer guns - that's fine. But based on your 2nd post in this thread, you appear to be basing your opinion on one broken polymer gun. Again, one gun whose brand you refuse to name. If we're going by anecdotes, then there're as many claiming high round counts in polymer guns (with Glocks, anyway, but not with something like a Sigma or Keltec) as there are of polymer frames failing. What facts, other than this one gun, lead you to believe that metal must be inherently superior? Will a "quality" (thanks for the qualifier) metal gun outlast a cheap polymer gun? I'd certainly guess so. But if we're comparing, say, a Glock 17 or 19 with a metal framed equivalent, I'd go at least even money on the Glock. Let us know what kind of gun broke. If it's a Glock or HK, that'd indicate a problem that has yet to widely manifest itself in those brands. If it's a Kraptec (yes, I have 2) or something, then you win the "metal vs plastic" debate under those circumstances.
I said that I'm not sure that my polymer guns aren't as tough as my metal ones - I've simply not dropped (thankfully) or shot them enough to know which'll give first. I do know that my metal SIGs experience more frame galling or gouging than my Glocks, and that I'd prefer the frames to be steel rather than alloy if SIG's going to make them in metal, at least in the .40 and 357 SIG cartridges. The FAM's went w/SIG 229's, but there's some (again, anecdotal) evidence that at not all of them are holding up so well to the pounding of the 357 SIG. Would polymer frames hold up any better? Prob not; that round seems to beat the crap out of most guns. On the other hand, the Ohio State Police found that the alloy framed SIG 226 .40 beat both polymer and steel frame guns in their tests. And, conversely, FBI and DEA find the polymer Glocks to be the gun of their choice in .40, after extensive testing as Tamara mentioned.
If polymer (of which there many types and grades) was inherently inferior to metal, it wouldn't be replacing it in a host of applications. There are simply too many differences among polymers and metals to make a blanket statment about superiority. Certainly the gun makers have found that out. There's a reason Glock went with a 3rd pin in their .40 frames, tho not so much due to a problem w/polymer frames per se as with the insert. When Glock did have their frame issue last year, it was the metal rails shearing, not the polymer. There's also a reason that SIG went to solid steel slides when they came out with the .40 229 - the fabricated metal slides on the 228/225/220 just wouldn't take the abuse. The alloy frames, tho, seem to gouge and gall as a matter of course. Again, differences in specific materials can make a big difference in performance in a given task. Good polymer wins in some cases, good metal in others. Re the ability to hold frame rails so the slide can cycle, it seems to be a wash on good guns from what I've seen.
If you want to name specific reasons why metal is superior for me to respond to, or go point-by-point on specifc aspects of quality metal vs quality polymer, I'm gonna hafta get my wife involved; she's a materials engineer and I'm a wood guy.
